10 de Agosto de 2005

Yo respondo al 21). Una empresa privada de seguros no estaría en posición de poder calcular con objetividad si ese vecino invadiría o no. Si el vecino tiene una de las más grandes reservas petroleras del mundo, habría que invadir, consiguiendo los testigos que sean (por la plata baila el mono). Solo le importaría sus propias ganancias al jugar el juego de las adivinanzas. Tendría una objetividad completamente viciada desde el principio. Digamos que el dinero se volvería el origen de males peor que los del vecino. Voto en contra de 21). A propósito, los 33 puntos son a favor de Murphy.

"21) Let us presume that a neighbor of the anarcho-capitalist society is a dictator analogous to Saddam Hussein, who has repeatedly shown himself to be prone to aggression, yet who has never invaded the anarcho-capitalist society. The insurance companies’ analysts predict that the cost of invading the neighboring State and displacing the dictator would be lower than the costs to be incurred in the event that said dictator were to invade. Would market anarchy be able to facilitate pre-emptive strikes against territories with a State? Would neighboring states be sufficiently deterred by the threat of such a pre-emptive strike as to behave in a manner conciliatory to the anarcho-capitalist society?"

"The insurance companies’ analysts predict that the cost of invading the neighboring State and displacing the dictator would be lower than the costs to be incurred in the event that said dictator were to invade."

Ya conozco vendedores de eso.